Translate:
Latest SEO Articles: Speaking At:
    Speaking at SMX London 2013
Follow Us:
Follow beanstalkseo on Twitter
Hear Us On:
Webmaster Radio
Blog Partner Of:
WebProNews Blog Partner
Helping Out:
Carbon balanced.
Archives
  • RSS

    XMLRSS

    Beanstalk's SEO News Blog

    At Beanstalk Search Engine Optimization we know that knowledge is power. That's the reason we started this SEO blog. We know that the better informed our visitors are, the better the decisions they will make for their websites and their online businesses. We hope you enjoy your stay and find the SEO news contained within this blog useful.


    November 8, 2011

    Get your own Google+ Page

    Today Google announced they are ready to let users claim pages on the G+ domain. It’s a bit busy over here: Create a Google + Page

    Stampede to get Google+ pages.The servers over at Google+ must feel a bit like this?

    … but you may want to bother with the line however because this is where you claim your name, brand, trademark, for Google+ pages.

    Since I’m waiting in said line-up, I can’t demo the experience and relay first hand info, but I can share what I do know:

    - Pages are ‘private’ right now.
    - Only the creator has access, so for a company, use the company account
    - Access on company pages for other users is coming
    - Expect page invites to be a bit excessive on larger profiles to start with

    Oh joy my page is waiting for me to setup! Are you folks still reading this? Go!

    SEO news blog post by @ 11:55 am


     

    November 2, 2011

    Finding Your Way With Sitemaps

    If you don’t know what a sitemap is, or have never created one…read on. A sitemap is a list of the individual pages on your website displayed in a hierarchical fashion similar to a table of contents, or index. They are sometimes used as a planning tool during the developmental stages of a site design, but more importantly, sitemaps act as a powerful navigational aid by providing a site overview at a glance. Sitemaps also benefit search engine optimization by ensuring that all the pages of a site can be found by web bots.

    sitemap image

    At one time, sitemaps were viewed as a luxury, or at the very least, not vital. For new sites, they are especially critical as it can take several months for a new site to get crawled and indexed by the search engines. Implementing a sitemap and submitting it to search engines and web analytic utilities such as Google Web Master Tools, will greatly aid in the indexing of your site. Sitemaps do not guarantee all links will be crawled, and being crawled does not guarantee indexing. However, a Sitemap is still the best insurance for getting a search engine to learn about your entire site.

    If your site is very large, has a complicated navigation system, or employs Flash or JavaScript menus that do not include html links, parts of the site may never get indexed. Even if you only have a small site, having a sitemap will ensure that all your pages are linked to and ensure that they will be picked up by the crawlers.

    Users and crawlers will now be able to access deep links and nested pages much more readily. Having well named, SEO friendly urls in your sitemaps creates the added functionality for users to conduct site-wide searches of the sitemap for specific keywords that they may be looking for in the site. Sitemaps have also been shown to increase PageRank and link popularity to all the pages it links to. While it is more important to have high quality links pointing to your site, you should not underestimate the usefulness of internal links pointing to your own pages.

    Sitemaps are written and saved as an .xml file which is the document structure and encoding standard used for webcrawlers to find and parse sitemaps. As such they are very unforgiving and must contain only valid XML syntax. (http://validator.w3.org/ ) Sites are able to be prioritized on an sliding scale from 0.1 to 1.0. Sitemaps are also beneficial in letting search engine bots know when you last updated your website.

    Even after reading this post you are still not convinced of the benefits of a sitemap, remember that Google has stated that a sitemap is a ranking factor for your site. Although it may be a small one, added together with several other smaller ranking factors, they all add up to substantial ranking factors and is considered the best practice for any website.

    For further information, check out this page in the Google Webmaster Tools Help.

    SEO news blog post by @ 11:52 am

    Categories: Google,SEO Tips
    Tags: , ,

     

    October 27, 2011

    SEO Articles

    Today was a pretty big day for Beanstalk in the category of putting out some solid content for our valued readers.  2 new articles have been published, one written by the reputable Kyle Krenbrink titled “Updating Your Website’s Content“.  The title is just a titch misleading.  When he first handed it to me for reading I thought I was about to read a technical piece on how to get new content onto your website.  Instead it’s well-written piece discussing what content you should be looking at adding and how often.  I may be biased but to me it’s a great piece for anyone interested in rankings in a post-Panda world.

    The second article is written by yours truly and appears over on the Search Engine Watch website.  The article covers rankings your website for image search and discusses everything from the tactics to do so as well as cautions on when it might not actually be beneficial (and yes, there are times this is the case).  With an author’s bias I have to say it’s a solid piece and definitely worth the read.  The article is appropriately  titled, “Ranking on Image Search“.  Enjoy. :)

    SEO news blog post by @ 1:31 pm


     

    October 26, 2011

    The Google, The FTC, and The News headlines

    If anyone’s been looking at the tech headlines today, particularly the really big sites with very political writers, you may have read something about the FTC having Google in chains over outrageous privacy violations.

    Some of that info is based on fact but most of what I’ve read is personal takes on the news with a heavy spin to sidetrack the facts and make a story.

    Google behind bars

    First, lets just get the elephant in the room to step into the light so we’re all looking at it:

    Google’s bread and butter is handling trust and privacy properly.
    If users can’t trust Google, we can’t use them.

    This is why Google has repeatedly been it’s own whistle blower.

    • The web was programmed by humans..
    • Humans make mistakes..
    • The real measure of things is dealing with the mistakes!

    When Google’s engineers came up with a shockingly brilliant method of ‘fingerprinting’ WiFi access points by sampling the data coming to/from the devices it wasn’t anyone outside the company that complained.

    The fact is that many homes (and some businesses) have zero wireless security, so what was a brilliant plan to get a ‘fingerprint’ ended up becoming a nightmare of un-encrypted data that had to be destroyed properly.

    Plus Google had to figure out what it could do to prevent this from happening again, so as part of the punishment Google helped devise for themselves, they setup a fund to create a privacy resource/knowledge base.

    At the time many sites tried to make news from the issue and imply that Google was a privacy nightmare, stealing data from unsuspecting users, etc.., etc.., totally overlooking the fact that anyone could (and probably does) roam around in a vehicle and collect the exact same data Google collected.

    The majority of the media coverage was almost insulting to the intellect of the readers, but I saw smart people drinking the cool-aid so don’t feel bad if you saw the headlines and got the wrong idea too.

    This latest issue is no different at all in terms of Google acting responsibly and the news makers trying to generate headlines.

    So here’s a factual take on the actual settlement, not some poorly considered opinion that I’m hoping will make this a headline:

    “Google Inc. has agreed to settle an FTC complaint that it used deceptive tactics and violated its own privacy policy when it launched the Google Buzz social network last year. In addition to alleged FTC privacy violations, this is the first time the FTC has alleged violations of the substantive privacy requirements of the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework, a method for U.S. companies to transfer personal data lawfully from the European Union to the United States.

    The settlement agreement bars the Google from future privacy misrepresentations, requires it to implement a comprehensive privacy program and includes regular, independent privacy audits for the next 20 years. This is the first time an FTC settlement order has required a company to implement a comprehensive privacy program to protect the privacy of consumers’ information.

    According to the FTC complaint, on the day Buzz was launched through the Gmail service, users got a message announcing the new service and were given two options: “Sweet! Check out Buzz,” and “Nah, go to my inbox.” However, some Gmail users who clicked on “Nah…” were enrolled in certain features of the Google Buzz social network anyway. For those Gmail users who clicked on “Sweet!,” the FTC alleges that they were not adequately informed that the identity of individuals they emailed most frequently would be made public by default. Google also offered a “Turn Off Buzz” option that did not fully remove the user from the social network.

    When Google launched Buzz, its privacy policy stated that “When you sign up for a particular service that requires registration, we ask you to provide personal information. If we use this information in a manner different than the purpose for which it was collected, then we will ask for your consent prior to such use.” The FTC complaint charges that Google violated its privacy policies by using information provided for Gmail for another purpose – social networking – without obtaining consumers’ permission in advance.

    The agency also alleges that by offering options like “Nah, go to my inbox,” and “Turn Off Buzz,” Google misrepresented that consumers who clicked on these options would not be enrolled in Buzz. In fact, they were enrolled in certain features of Buzz.

    The complaint further alleges that a screen that asked consumers enrolling in Buzz, “How do you want to appear to others?” indicated that consumers could exercise control over what personal information would be made public. The FTC charged that Google failed to disclose adequately that consumers’ frequent email contacts would become public by default.

    Finally, the agency alleges that Google misrepresented that it was treating personal information from the European Union in accordance with the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor privacy framework. The framework is a voluntary program administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce in consultation with the European Commission. To participate, a company must self-certify annually to the Department of Commerce that it complies with a defined set of privacy principles. The complaint alleges that Google’s assertion that it adhered to the Safe Harbor principles was false because the company failed to give consumers notice and choice before using their information for a purpose different from that for which it was collected.”

    SEO news blog post by @ 1:46 pm


     

    October 20, 2011

    Secure search service stirs SEOs slightly

    Every once in a while there’s an announcement that makes a huge kerfuffle online only to be yesterdays news the next week. Yesterday’s news is that Google made the move towards secure searches for Google account holders that are logged in while searching. It was actually announced on the 18th, and I didn’t see anything until Kyle mentioned it on the afternoon of the 19th, so it’s actually worse than yesterday’s news!

    Google secure search

    Anyone following search engine news would be perfectly normal to feel a bit of déjà vu since Google’s had secure search options way back in early 2010. The latest announcement that is stirring up responses is the fact that they are now dropping header info that would normally be passed along to the destination site which could then be tracked and analyzed for SEO purposes.

    Google has plenty of good reasons to make this move and only a few reasons against it. Here’s a quick breakdown of the pros/cons:

    • Most searchers are not logged in and won’t be effected
    • Estimates fall between %3-%7 of current search traffic is logged in
    • Tracking the “not provided” searches in Google Analytics will show the missing traffic
    • Mobile users connecting from public WiFi networks can search securely
    • Users of free internet services will have additional privacy
    • HTTPS Everywhere is crucial and backed by Google
    • Webmaster Central still provides search terms to registered owners

    Cons:

    • Mobile searchers tend to be logged in
    • Traffic projections for mobile search are growing
    • Google has to make the data accessible to it’s paid users
    • SSL is now becoming a much larger ranking factor

    Amy Chang over on the Google Analytics blog had the following point to make:

    “When a signed in user visits your site from an organic Google search, all web analytics services, including Google Analytics, will continue to recognize the visit as Google ‘organic’ search, but will no longer report the query terms that the user searched on to reach your site..”
    “Keep in mind that the change will affect only a minority of your traffic. You will continue to see aggregate query data with no change, including visits from users who aren’t signed in and visits from Google ‘cpc’.”

    Thom Craver, Web and Database specialist for the Saunders College at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) was quoted on Search Engine Watch as noting:

    “Analytics can already run over https if you tell it to in the JavaScript Code … There’s no reason why Google couldn’t make this work, if the site owners cooperated by offering their entire site via HTTPS.”

    Personally, as you can tell from my lead-in, I feel like this is much ado about nothing. Unless competing search engines are willing to risk user privacy/safety to cater to SEOs in a short term bid for popularity, this isn’t going to be repealed. I don’t like to see the trend of money = access, but in this case I don’t see much choice and I’ll stand behind Google’s move for now.

    SEO news blog post by @ 12:12 pm


     

    October 19, 2011

    Resurrecting Dead Backlinks

    I came across a great post today from JR Cooper on the SEOMoz site in which he was discussing how to use backlink checkers to find broken links and how to use these to obtain new links. First off he recommended a great new Chrome extension called "Check My Links."

    dead link grave

    I have just installed the extension myself so I cannot comment directly on it. But the great things JR Cooper reports about it sound very compelling.

    "Pretty much, it’s the greatest link building browser extension I’ve ever used. First of all, it’s extremely fast. Like almost too fast. It usually checks half the page in under 10 seconds. It also finds the links that are quickest to check, saving the links with long load times for last (I still don’t know how they do this). Best of all, I can check multiple pages at once, which saves some serious time because I usually find 50 pages at a time to check. As a bonus, it even tells you what kind of page error the broken link got (i.e. 404, 500, etc.)."

    The description from the Chrome Web Store:

    "Check My Links" is an extension developed primarily for web designers, developers and content editors (and SEOs).>When you’re editing a web page that has lots of links, wouldn’t it be handy to be able to quickly check that all the links on the page are working ok? That’s where &Check My Links" comes in. "Check My Links" quickly finds all the links on a web page, and checks each one for you. It highlights which ones are valid and which ones are broken, simple as that. HTTP response codes and full URLs of broken links are published in the Console log.

    As most of us in the SEO industry are finding, it is becoming increasingly difficult to build links to your client’s websites. Tactics that were once widely utilized are no completely ineffective. At the risk of repeating myself again and again; the Panda algorithm has effectively changed everything about how links are obtained. For instance, subsequent updates have rendered posting to forums virtually ineffective for these purposes.

    Cooper goes on to detail how this extension can be used for dead link building. The first tactic he describes is Direct Find and Replace. This is where you generate a list of broken links from blogrolls and link pages. You then contact the webmasters of the sites and ask to replace one of the dead links with a link back to your site.

    The next method he describes is Content Replacement. He suggests looking at the actual pages that are broken and using the Internet Archive’s "Way Back Machine" to find the original content that was being linked to and then to recreate the content on your own site. You can then contact the webmaster to update their links to the new (and improved) content. Subsequently, you can then use free tools such as Open Site Explorer or Yahoo Site Explorer to discover other sites that were linking to the original content as well and ask if they would like to link to the new and improved content as well.

    The last technique he describes is Broken Blogger Blogs where you use the tools to find broken links on blogrolls that point to subdomains on blogspot.com and then looking to see if he can register the blog himself. If so, then he puts up a static page with a desired keyword linking back to the new blog location. Not only does this give you the anchor text of your choice, but it gives a link with a higher amount of link juice (depending on how many outbound links are pointing to that page). He does state that this is a fairly "greyhat" tactic and has requested reader feedback on the ethics of such a tactic.

    To recap; the Panda updates are forcing all users to generate better content. It is a bold effort by Google to reduce the amounts of web-spam that have inundated the SERPs for far too long. As an end-user you should love Google for their efforts; as an SEO it means that the whole game has changed and that we have to continue to evolve with the changes to remain effective in our industry.

    SEO news blog post by @ 11:53 am


     

    October 12, 2011

    Panda 2.5 Weather Report: To Panic or Not to Panic?

    As most were involved actively with SEO are aware, an update to the Google Panda Algorithm was implemented on September 28th and again on October 5th. This appears to be part of ongoing revisions to the Panda algorithm that continue to cause wild fluctuations in many websites rankings. Confirmed on September 30th, Google’s new Panda 2.5 arrived. It is still unclear if Panda 2.5 had been reversed or updated.

    DaniWeb, who has taken extreme measures to recover from the previous Panda updates, states that the site was hit hard again by this latest iteration of Panda. DaniWeb stated that traffic to the site dropped by as much as 50% on October 5th, which was the release of a previous update to the algorithm.

    Search Metrics has stated that 10 of 30 sites being hit saw an 80-90% recovery in visibility, but also stated that many others saw little to no improvement at all.

    In a post from Search Engine Watch, Simon Heseltine wrote a post asking "Was the Google Panda 2.5 Panic Warranted?" I have to respond with an emphatic, “yes.” Google continues to erode confidence in property by continually pulling the rug out from under its multitude of users. Many sites have still not recovered from the original Panda update at the beginning of the year, despite following all the best SEO and content practices and completing site overhauls.

    As is usual with major updates to the Google Algorithm, there is much speculation over the full scope or impact of the update. This time is no different. With conflicting reports from Search Metrics and sites like DaniWeb it is difficult to know who is correct. The more likely reality is that they are both right. Even though there appears to be an abundance of information discussing tactics for recovering from Panda and despite the valiant efforts of site owners to recover, many continue to be hit hard, while others seem to weather the updates quite well.

    More transparency from Google could help to quell the debates and to restore a measure of confidence in the search-engine giant. Releasing timely information regarding algorithm updates would save an enormous amount of frustration for their users. It is exceedingly difficult to apply a bandage if you cannot see where you are hemorrhaging from. Google is even getting pressure from Danny Sullivan to be more transparent with the Panda updates. This may or may not have prompted Matt Cutts to release a "weather report" regarding Panda:

    SEO news blog post by @ 11:56 am


     

    October 11, 2011

    What word to use for anchor text?

    As a well connected SEO I digest a lot of publications from the web and I try to limit my opinion to factual results either from real world feedback or by controlled tests. Google is constantly evolving and improving itself to render the best search results possible, or at least better search results than the competition.

    Considering where Google was with regards to just hardware in 1999, things certainly keep changing:

    Evolution of Google - First server

    On Monday SEO Moz published a small test they did to gauge the importance of keywords in the anchor text of links. The test is discussed in detail over on SEO Moz but the result was rather straight forward.

    In a nutshell they took 3 new sites, randomly equivalent, and tried to build some controlled links to the sites using three different approaches:

    1. Build links with just ‘click here’ text
    2. Build links with the same main keyword phrase
    3. Build links with random components of the main keyword phrase

    Obviously the test is a bit broken, because if you don’t have existing keyword relevance for a phrase, you should build relevance with keywords in the anchors. When Google is sorting out who will be ranked #1 for a site dealing with candies, the site linked to with relevant keywords should always rank higher than a site with links like “click here” or “this site” which aren’t relevant. The only exception would be in a situation where the links seem excessive or ‘spammy’ and may result in Google not considering any of the similar links for relevance.

    Outside of a clean test environment we know the best results would be a blend of all three types, with a bit of brand linking mixed in to avoid losing focus on brand keywords. A well established site with a healthy user base will constantly be establishing brand due to all the time on site and click-through traffic for that brand.

    ie. If I search for “Sears” and click on the first link only to find it’s a competitor, I’d hit back and find the right link to click. In most cases Google’s watching/learning from the process, so brand links aren’t going to be a necessity after a site is quite popular, and the % of brand links wouldn’t need to be much at all.

    Kudos to SEOMoz for publishing some of their SEO test info regardless of how experimental it was. We’re constantly putting Google’s updates to the test and it’s often very hard to publish the results in such a clinical fashion for all to see. We will always make an attempt to blog on the topics we’re testing but it’s still on the to-do list to publish more of the data.

    SEO news blog post by @ 11:56 am


     

    October 7, 2011

    All I’m Going To Say Is …

    Alright, no it’s not.  For those of you who are watching your PageRank using one of the myriad of tools available (SEO Quake, Search Status, etc.) you may have noticed that the bar is grey.  Google has not discontinued PageRank, they’ve just moved it’s reference URL and most tools have yet to adapt.  You can expect updates soon from most of them I’m sure.

    This issue was first spotted by (go figure) Dave Naylor.

    So rest easy, we’ll all have a little green bar to continue to stare at. :)

    SEO news blog post by @ 11:14 am

    Categories: Google
    Tags: , ,

     

    October 4, 2011

    Early October SEO Shakeups at Google

    New panda updates that target tag clouds and forum links? New paid adwords seems to be diminishing the quality of the free service? Landing page quality score improvements to be had with latest AdWords updates? What’s not changed over at Google this month?

    Seeking change

    Tag Clouds and Forum Links?

    For some time now it’s been easy to add tag clouds to blogs and websites, most of them are even dynamically built so they reflect the ongoing topics of your pages, and the really clever ones make each keyword a link.

    The result of all that effort leaves a typical tag cloud looks something like this:

    .. and that’s a LOT of keywords + links for a crawler to ignore! Word from some of the worst hit sites seems to place a common factor on keyword clouds as the likely component that is now the target of this most recent Panda update over at Google. We’re a really aggressive source of content with a high level of trust, so I doubt one instance of using a tag cloud will tank our blog, but I did debate making the above example an image only.

    Forum Links are Worth-Less?

    One site that’s been taking a beating from Panda over and over again (eh! rocko!) is DaniWeb. They have been acting as a lightning rod during the storm of over 500 changes Google’s made this year alone to ranking algorithms. In a recent video post from the CEO and Founder of DaniWeb on WebProNews the topic of diminished return of value from forum posts begs for testing:

    New AdWords Pro and Language improvements?

    This is a topic we can’t just lump into a big multi-post and we know needs in-depth discussion. Many SEOs are discussing how the professional offerings from AdWords coincide with ‘improvements’ to the free service that have actually been viewed as setbacks by the users.

    Right now we’re still working with the free version that all our clients are using, but I’d bet we’ll give the pro-service a trial by the years end and will have some input on how valuable we think the upgrade is. I doubt we’ll extract enough value to cover the monthly fees Google is currently asking for, but we would have to try it and see to be sure.

    The recently improved AdWords language support means that targeted ads are improving the quality score of landing pages. This could be a bit of a change depending on where your competition is based. If you are a local US market you probably won’t see much if any competition change, but if you’re an international your customers for other countries could be looking at a fresh set of SERPs. As a result, SEOs, and people watching their stats closely would do well to note this factor.

    Expect to hear more about these changes, and really any changes that effect SEO in a way that matters. It’s one thing to mention things as they happen it’s another situation entirely to have tested these things first hand and have intimate experience to share. Soon!

    SEO news blog post by @ 12:41 pm


     

    « Newer PostsOlder Posts »
    Level Triple-A conformance icon, W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
    Copyright© 2004-2013
    Beanstalk Search Engine Optimization, Inc.
    All rights reserved.